Michael Aigner sent me a message via Facebook that explains the conundrum of Paul Richter’s early rating spike to 2211. There were two pieces of information that I didn’t know.<\/p>\n
Now we know how he got that rating. The question still remains whether it makes sense to rate a provisional player that way. I’m sure that the USCF rating committee had many discussions before instituting the policy, and considered every scenario. I still think that they made the wrong choice. It’s inconsistent. They are drawing a distinction between someone who starts their career with an 8\u00bd-\u00bd record and someone who starts with a 9-0 record, and the difference is HUGE. As I discussed in my last post, Paul’s rating would have been in the 1600s if computed the normal way, but with this top-victim-plus-400 way, his rating was in the 2200’s.<\/p>\n
In the long run, of course, it doesn’t matter. Paul’s rating eventually found the right level. But it must be a little bit weird to “make master” at age sixteen… but really you’re just coming back to where your rating was at age ten. Did he get a master certificate when he was ten? Will he get one now, or will the computer say he was already rated 2211 earlier, so he doesn’t get one?<\/p>\n
On a side note, I want to point out how extremely impressive Paul’s progress has been this year. In his last six tournaments, dating back to February, he has gone 2066 -> 2074 -> 2082 -> 2146 -> 2187 -> 2191 -> 2271. Six straight improvements, some of them huge, adding up to more than a 200-point jump in the last seven months. He probably would have gone over 2200 in his last tournament if I hadn’t beaten him, but that just set him up to make his master rating in epic fashion at the CalChess State Championship.<\/p>\n